The reviews for Diversicare - Montgomery are highly polarized and reveal a facility with strong strengths in rehabilitation and some genuinely caring staff, but also with serious and recurring concerns about safety, cleanliness, and consistency of care. On the positive side, numerous reviewers highlight compassionate and friendly staff, a welcoming atmosphere, and effective rehabilitation services. Several families named and praised individual employees — including the Director of Nursing, Director of Rehabilitation, and specific CNAs or therapists — describing them as professional, patient-focused, and instrumental in improving patients’ mobility and well-being. Some reviewers reported clean, private rooms, helpful administrative staff, flexible visiting, and a sense of family and community fostered by activities staff and long-term caregivers. These positives often center on specific departments (rehab, business office) or individual team members who go above and beyond.
However, a sizeable portion of reviews describe grave problems that are potentially dangerous. Multiple reviewers allege neglect and even physical harm: slow or absent responses to call lights and phones, urine-soaked linens, feces in beds, untreated wounds or bruising, and falls attributable to lack of timely assistance. There are specific accounts of equipment failures (bed alarm not working), unsafe clinical practices (an IV removed without gloves and blood left exposed), and medication concerns (reports of alarming medication use, including references to morphine and IV fluids). Several reviewers report that the facility appears poorly maintained in places — peeling paint, broken curtains, missing furniture, cold rooms without blankets — and pest sightings (roaches, a reported rat) that raise infection-control and sanitary concerns.
A major recurring theme is inconsistent care quality tied to staffing and individual employees. Many reviews emphasize that outcomes depend heavily on which staff are on duty: when praised staff are present, care is described as attentive, compassionate, and effective; when problematic staff or shifts occur, reviewers report neglect, rudeness, or dangerous lapses. Multiple accounts cite short staffing, long waits for help, unanswered phones, and staff presence without timely assistance (many workers present but not responding). This variability extends to management perceptions — some reviewers praise administration and leadership for responsiveness and professionalism, while others call out poor management, inability to distribute medications, or even recommend regulatory action.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback: some families found the food acceptable and the activity staff engaging, while others describe terrible food (including reports of a bug in a meal), limited menu diversity, and few outings. Cleanliness is similarly split — a number of reviews call the facility immaculate and peaceful, while others detail severe hygiene lapses such as soiled linens, dirty rooms, and instances implying infection risk. Safety incidents are repeatedly mentioned: falls, bedside accidents, broken equipment (bed table), failed alarms, and a reported instance of a catheter patient lacking overnight water. These incidents, combined with allegations of medication errors and theft of personal items, contribute to strong recommendations from some reviewers to avoid the facility or to investigate it further.
Overall sentiment is therefore sharply divided. There is a clear cluster of positive experiences rooted in rehabilitation success stories and staff members who provide compassionate, family-like care. Simultaneously, there is an equally large cluster of negative, often serious allegations involving neglect, unsafe clinical practices, poor maintenance, pests, and management inconsistencies. The most prominent patterns to note are: 1) care quality is highly variable and appears shift- and staff-dependent; 2) serious safety and hygiene concerns are reported frequently enough to be a red flag; and 3) leadership and specific departments (notably rehab and certain named employees) receive strong praise from many families.
For someone evaluating this facility, the reviews suggest a need for caution. Prospective residents and families should: (a) meet and assess the specific staff who will be primary caregivers (ask about turnover and continuity), (b) tour the specific unit and rooms to verify maintenance and cleanliness, (c) inquire about staffing ratios, alarm functionality, and emergency response times, and (d) check the state inspection history and any reported complaints. If rehabilitation services are the primary need, Diversicare - Montgomery appears capable of delivering positive outcomes under the care of experienced therapy teams. If safety, consistent basic care, and cleanliness are the primary concerns, the mixed reports and some severe allegations indicate a need for closer scrutiny and follow-up before placement.
